Today's elections may not feature any high-profile battles for elected office, but a question of ethics has gained the attention of a number of Philadelphians.
The ballot question is a proposed amendment to the Philadelphia City Charter that many feel could be key to long-term ethics reform.
The amendment -- which needs only the approval of the city's electorate to become law -- would limit the size of contracts that could be awarded to firms that have made sizable political donations.
Whereas firms vying for a construction job, for instance, are subject to a bidding process before being awarded a city contract, the City Charter currently allows no-bid contracts to be awarded for professional services, including legal and financial consultation.
City politicians, therefore, have essentially been able to pick and choose which private companies they want to award contracts.
Critics have routinely accused politicians of selecting the firm willing to make the highest campaign donation, and FBI investigations into so-called "pay to play" corruption have led to convictions for more than a dozen politicians in the last year.
City Councilman Michael Nutter has been spearheading the effort to pass the ethics-reform measure.
Julia Chapman, Nutter's chief of staff, said that she believes the measure will pass today.
"If it's passed with a very substantial margin," she said, "it will send a message to the City Council and the mayor that the public does in fact care about ethics."
Passage with a strong mandate, she said, would make it easier to implement further ethics reforms in the future.
Such measures could include the creation of an independent ethics board for the city and further regulations guarding against corruption in contract bidding.
Although there is no organized opposition to the ballot question, Chapman said that there are some potential obstacles to a successful "yes" vote.
Chief among these is the confusing wording of the question, necessitated by Pennsylvania state law.
"If people take the time to read it," said political analyst Larry Ceisler, "then they won't be out of the voting booth until the next election."
Ceisler, who supports the measure, added that many people -- 30 to 40 percent, he estimated -- simply do not bother to answer questions on their ballots.
Moreover, he added that he believes a large number of voters are inherently inclined to vote "no" on ballot questions.
This is because, he said, people tend to vote "no" on issues if they do not fully understand them.
Still, Ceisler predicted that the measure would pass easily, with the "yes" vote getting perhaps as much as 65 to 70 percent.
Voters who turn out for elections in off years such as this, he said, tend to be activists more inclined to vote "yes."
Chapman added that in order to combat potential pitfalls, various groups, including political watchdog group the Committee of Seventy, have organized "get out the vote" efforts. These include newspaper ads and phone calls to voters as well as literature available at polling places explaining the question.
